European Court dismisses Philip Green's privacy claims in Parliament case

In a significant ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, Sir Philip Green's legal challenge against the naming of individuals protected by court injunctions was dismissed. This ruling came after Green's identity was revealed in the House of Lords by Labour peer Lord Hain in October 2018, amidst allegations of sexual misconduct. Green had secured a court injunction that prevented the media from disclosing specific allegations against him by former employees, who were bound by non-disclosure agreements. His lawyers argued that parliamentary privilege was being misused in a way that undermined the effectiveness of judicial protections offered by injunctions. In April 2019, Green filed a complaint asserting that the disclosure of his identity and the accompanying allegations violated his rights to privacy and a fair trial, as outlined under various articles of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the panel of judges found that his right to privacy was not violated and concluded that matters regarding parliamentary speech should be primarily resolved by national parliamentary authorities rather than the European Court. The decision has sparked discussions regarding the balance between parliamentary privilege and the enforcement of judicial injunctions, highlighting a complex issue within the UK legal framework about how injunctions and parliamentary speeches intersect. The judges noted the enduring concern surrounding the misuse of parliamentary privilege to disclose information covered by court injunctions yet deferred the responsibility of addressing this situation to the UK Parliament.